A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 1,007
#631
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
If you have any evidence that is not anecdotal in nature I would be happy to see it. I love to learn. That does not however mean that I am able to believe in things that have not been demonstrated and a definition is not a demonstration. 

Please explain how you are (more) correct and pga is (less) correct from the perspective of the evidence you each claim to have. He claims to have a book of revealed truth from some god(s) which is purportedly transcendent and necessary and which gives true and accurate prophesy and also that he pga is (more) correct and that you Yessine are (less) correct or perhaps even wrong I'm not sure which.

Given that you make very similar claims with evidence that is anecdotal or based on tautologies that have not been demonstrated how shall I possibly choose between christianity or Islam? That is if either is in fact (more) correct since disproving one would in no way prove the other.
#632
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
- Once you define God as a necessary being & proceed to demonstrate the existence of said necessary being, then you can not identify it with a contingent being. That would violate the very law of non-contradiction, it's like saying God is both contingent & non-contingent, which is a contradiction. It's just too embarrassing when retards attempt to sound clever. ;-)
You're very slow on the uptake look.


Your god is not defined as a necessary being, you claim it is a necessary being
#633
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Yassine
- All-Good is not an attribute of God either. In Islam, Good & Evil are relative concepts. God is not contingent on Good. We do not worship God because God is Good, for then in the absence of Good, God deserves no worship, which entails Good is what you worship, not God. God does not have to be Good or Bad, God is not subject to Morality.
This part makes a lot of sense.
#634
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Yassine
- Once you define God as a necessary being & proceed to demonstrate the existence of said necessary being, then you can not identify it with a contingent being. That would violate the very law of non-contradiction, it's like saying God is both contingent & non-contingent, which is a contradiction. It's just too embarrassing when retards attempt to sound clever. ;-)
You define "first mover and sustainer" as a logical necessity.  You call this "first mover and sustainer" god.

I define "first mover and sustainer" as a logical necessity.  I call this "first mover and sustainer" noumenon.

When an atheist says "your god doesn't exist", you jump to the conclusion that they are denying the logical necessity and call them "illogical".

They are not denying the logical necessity.  They just call it by a different name.  The big bang, the unknown, noumenon, Magnum Mysterium.

The key problem we are here to explore and hopefully solve is, "(IFF) there must be a creator (THEN) what can we possibly know about it? (AND) which of the mythical gods (if any) best describe the logical necessity?"
#635
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Test
#636
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree entirely.   Put crudely, we all sign upto the universe having some kind of origin.   What is in doubt is whether its origin is anything like the one proposed by theists and ontological, cosmological kalam-type proofs do nothing to establish that.

#637
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
An unknown/unknowable "first cause" has exactly the same utility and explanatory power as "god(s)".
The Christian God is knowable. He reasons with humanity in both by 1) what He has made and 2) by His written word. 
The holy scriptures have no coherent explanation for the formation of our universe.
Sure they do, God spoke the universe into existence. He said, and it was - no more difficult to God than that.


 The holy scriptures have no coherent version of the scientific method.
The intent is not scientific but spiritual and historical although principles of logic and science are found. God is not trying to impress us with scientific knowledge but relates in a spiritual and colloquial way to the relevant audience of address directly and us indirectly as the secondary audience.

  The holy scriptures do not contain a coherent description of what we call the laws of physics (Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica).
From the Bible, we can deduce particular principles of science such as the earth is round (not flat as thought about in earlier centuries). 
Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22 
 
Again, God is relating directly to a Mosaic Covenant people who are not advanced in science like we are thus He speaks in terms they will understand. He chose these people to make Himself known to the world with His interaction and providence to them.



If I say "unknown/unknowable-first-cause" (noumenon) and you say "god(s)", THEN WHAT?

Which one of us knows "more" about our universe?
What do you truly know about it and how did you come to this knowledge? 
I know what is within our epistemological limits.  I have confidence in these conclusions because of the demonstrable efficacy of logic, mathematics, and the scientific method.

As far as speculation about what may or may not be beyond our current epistemological limits, I do not hesitate to say, "nobody knows".

"Our epistemological limits" meaning no one has yet made sense of origins?

How do you know nobody knows? Again, I point to a necessary Being for us to know through His revelation otherwise, I would agree, although one theory seems to be accepted by mainstream science as more valid than any other.

#638
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL


Which theory of the universe do you hold to? 
The one supported by verifiable data.
And which one is that?

Why is your view the necessary view of how and why the universe exists? 


Why is your view the necessary view of how and why the universe exists? 
Because it is consistent with logic and mathematics and the scientific method, validated by verifiable efficacy.
Yet we have finite knowledge. Particular views of science like the Ptolemaic view have been overturned by the Copernican view. Newton had limited knowledge and some of his principles have been refuted and others have been expanded upon. Einstein's views have been expanded. Now we have the science of quantum physics and other views that challenge the current paradigm. They all used mathematics and logic. With their limited understanding, these people thought their views were valid, the answer, yet some of those views have been overturned or modified and expanded upon. 


How are theses explanations FUNCTIONALLY DISTINCT?
What do you mean?
When someone asks, "what existed or happened BEFORE the big-bang?"

And you say "god"

And I say "nobody knows"

These answers are FUNCTIONALLY identical.

Your answer does not logically necessitate ANY modification to our daily behavior.
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible. Why would a universe begin to exist, then sustain itself via random chance happenstance? It is not logically consistent that a universe that has no intent to it, no design, no purpose would continue to exist and sustain itself for billions of years via chance. And why do we continue to find meaning in a meaningless universe, even design? Is meaning and design really there or are we just making it up?


Your answer does not reveal any useful or actionable data or insights.
It makes sense of how origins can come about, through intentional Being and by His sustaining it.

We see how humans are able to sustain things and utilize nature in cultivating it for food that left alone would return to randomness without their human input. 

The data is there in prophecy and how it interacts with history. It is reasonable and logical to believe with the information available to us from history. 


Saying, "god did it" is functionally identical to saying, "nobody knows". [LINK]
Again, God doing it makes sense of its being. I challenge you to explain why the universe is here. Make sense of the "why." 


I understand that when you say, "god did it" you try to add "therefore we must obey the teachings written in some old book".

But you have yet to bridge that incomprehensible gap with any sort of (even tacitly) coherent argument.


What is more reasonable, life coming from the living or life coming from something devoid of life, and where do you ever witness it doing so? You just assume it can because you have built a paradigm around such a scenario.


#639
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
609 posts to day. Some religions name a creator god and some don't. Atheists, doing it the wrong way again.
Are gods in your philosophical framework like a room full of toddlers, all making incoherent claims?
I'll jump in here. For me, only one God.

Atheists make claims based on a paradigm that cannot explain our most important questions of meaning. Science does not seek to explain meaning in the sense of qualitative values, just the way things are or what is, yet scientists are constantly seeking qualitative meaning. Science cannot answer the question of why we are here, just describe that we are here. It does not know why the universe exists, only that it exists. It cannot justify morality but it uses morality. Science does not know how consciousness comes from something devoid of consciousness. Scientists can only speculate and set up all kinds of theories. 

Humanity, throughout history, has looked to Someone greater than themselves in understanding these questions for good reason. They can't be explained or made sense of otherwise.


"I'm the best", "no, I'm the best", "I'm the only god", "no you're not", "I was firs
?My scientific view is correct." "No, mine is correct. It is the one that explains things best!" No, you both are wrong. This is the best scientific explanation!" "Oh, wait, we have additional information that changes the whole paradigm - stupid us!"  
Topic's author
#640
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible.

You keep stepping in this. The topic at hand grants the universe exists via an agency creating it, for purposes of discussion. We're on page 26 and you've not made one inch of progress toward the question: why is that agent the god in your book. You continually skip that step and then start talking about stuff that makes no sense and that no one contends in this topic. 

Why would a universe begin to exist, then sustain itself via random chance happenstance?
The laws of nature =/= chance happenstance, and by all observations, they are what sustains the existence of the universe and describe how it behaves. 

It is not logically consistent that a universe that has no intent to it, no design, no purpose would continue to exist and sustain itself for billions of years via chance.
Again, the laws of nature appear to be sufficient to sustain the universe, because they are demonstrated. You question isn't really sustaining the universe, it's what CREATED the universe. The existence of a thinking agent up there with its hands on the dials IS NOT demonstrated, though it is GRANTED for discussion here. Why is that character your god? Don't say "It is," or "The bible says it is," or "that's the one that makes the most sense." Explain, don't assert. Again, page 26 and you've not tried. 

And nothing seems more ludicrous to me than when a person claims there's a reason or a plan or a purpose and then makes no attempt to describe any of them in any way. "What is the purpose of the unverse" is the question to which you feel you have a religious based answer, but when queried all you can say is "BEcause god wants us to love him or wants to  love us", which does not in any way explain anything, particularly when he's apparently done such a shit job designing people that he is by default mad at them forever. He's sure good at covering his tracks though, that part he paid particular attention to: disappear, and then leave only evidence that makes it look like you were never there and aren't required. 
Topic's author
#641
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Science changing its position is WHY SCIENCE WORKS as well as it does. It's how we advance: by not accepting the answer that the sun goes around the earth. Let's say you were ill: would you want medical treatment described in the bible, or medical treatments described by modern science? You start having seizures, do you want a scientist who says "Let's look at your brain with all the advances of modern technology and neurological theory and information, find the problem and try to solve it," or do you want a doctor who says "Sorry, man, it's clearly demonic possession wrought upon you likely for something your grandfather did to offend the god who sits behind the sun, I'm afraid the only answer is to go out into the wilderness, beg for forgiveness until madness overtakes you"? 

One's biblically sound. The other is science. Choose carefully! 
#642
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The holy scriptures have no coherent explanation for the formation of our universe.
Sure they do, God spoke the universe into existence. He said, and it was - no more difficult to God than that.
That story gives me zero practical or actionable data.  It has no explanatory power.  Just like this one. [LINK]

 The holy scriptures have no coherent version of the scientific method.
The intent is not scientific but spiritual and historical although principles of logic and science are found. God is not trying to impress us with scientific knowledge but relates in a spiritual and colloquial way to the relevant audience of address directly and us indirectly as the secondary audience.
Fair enough.  But if that is the case, then why does anyone imagine that science has ever or will ever conflict with religious teachings?

Any ideas espoused by a humanist, scientist, atheist, or materialist should be perfectly and utterly harmless based on this "purely spiritual" interpretation.

  The holy scriptures do not contain a coherent description of what we call the laws of physics (Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica).
From the Bible, we can deduce particular principles of science such as the earth is round (not flat as thought about in earlier centuries). 
Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22 
Even the flat-earthers believe the planet is "round" (like a paper plate).

Job 26:10 - "inscribed a horizon"
Prov 8:27 - "marked out the horizon"
Isaiah 40:22 - "the circle of the earth"

I'm sure you realize that "the horizon" is a mostly flat circle with an approximately three mile radius.
 
Again, God is relating directly to a Mosaic Covenant people who are not advanced in science like we are thus He speaks in terms they will understand. He chose these people to make Himself known to the world with His interaction and providence to them.
Ok, sounds good.  No science.  No problem.

"Our epistemological limits" meaning no one has yet made sense of origins?
There are no demonstrable theories on the topic, only logically necessities.

How do you know nobody knows?
I'm sure somebody would have said something.  (IFF) the answer (to life the universe and everything/Einstein's Unified Field Theory) has been discovered in some super-top-secret-magical-laboratory somewhere (THEN) I will be seriously thrilled to be proven incorrect when they submit their findings for peer-review.

Again, I point to a necessary Being [THING] for us to know through His [ITS] revelation otherwise, I would agree, although one theory seems to be accepted by mainstream science as more valid than any other.
Again, I point to a necessary thing (noumenon) for us to learn what is possible to learn (Mysterium Invisus) and to accept what we can never know (Magnum Mysterium).
#643
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Before we go any further I would like to remind you that I asked if you can independently demonstrate the trinity.
Independent of what?


Islam being wrong aboit the trinity would not necessarily make Christianity right.
True. The evidence is in the Holy Scriptures themselves. Only one can be true (if one is true) since they both contradict each other. Compare what they say, and the internal evidence of both. Does the Trinity make sense? I believe it does and I can argue for it using Scripture since the claim is that shared Scripture (the OT) does not contain the concept of the Trinity.


Also and as I've said before even if we accept that there is some accurate prophecy in the bible that by itself does not tell us the source of said prophecy not does it prove that anything else in the bible is true.
It does. The Bible is specific on who prophecy comes from.

It gives good, logical reasons to trust it but God confirms Himself to the believer in all kinds of ways when we look at the universe and what God has made. They make sense when you bring God into the equation. Without Him, we are left in a sea of relativism where our limited knowledge is a hindrance for us. 


That is why I ask for independent verification.

Independent? There is bias in every view. What makes your view better? Why should I believe you? Who are you to tell me the way things are?

What authority do you have that I should believe you? You are just like me, limited in your understanding. You do not see the big picture. You walk in darkness and you encourage others to stumble along with you. No thanks! Life is too short to spend it in wasteful speculation that can't make sense of why I'mm here. I choose the view that can make sense of it and by doing so I find meaning and purpose as well as true love and caring for who I am. I understand God's hand in my life every day, His mercy and compassion for me who believes in Him. Thank you, Lord!

The atheistic worldview has nothing to offer. It is barren and desolate. If that is your belief, stumble on! 

#644
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Independent? There is bias in every view. What makes your view better? Why should I believe you? Who are you to tell me the way things are?

What authority do you have that I should believe you?
Because I appeal to pure, verifiable logic.

I have no authority because I don't need any authority because my arguments DO NOT rely on appeals to authority.

I love how the reflexive reaction to "why should I believe your old book and not some other old book" is 100% unchained NIHILISM (table flip).
#645
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
The laws of nature =/= chance happenstance, and by all observations, they are what sustains the existence of the universe and describe how it behaves. 
Well stated.
#646
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Atheists make claims based on a paradigm that cannot explain our most important questions of meaning.
Fabricated, ad hoc "answers" that don't actually explain anything are cold comfort to those of us who don't believe in invisible magic unicorns.
#647
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The atheistic worldview has nothing to offer. It is barren and desolate. If that is your belief, stumble on! 
Even if this statement is 100% true, it does absolutely nothing at all to validate your PARTICULAR religious belief.
#648
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The atheistic worldview

Atheists have various worldviews but atheism is not a worldview.

Independent of what?
Independent of your desire for it to be true, independent of the source of the claim (in this case the bible), and independently falsifiable.
The Bible is specific on who prophecy comes from.
The bible is the claim not the evidence. How besides the claims of the bible itself have you determined the source of the bible itself? Can you prove That the hypothetical true and accurate prophesy did not come directly from men? Can you prove that it's source was not some "wicked spirit"? Can you prove that it's source was not aliens or the flying spagett monster? Is the source of the prophesy itself even important unless you can somehow demonstrate that all writings in the bible have the same source?

What authority do you have that I should believe you?
I am not asking you to believe anything. I am asking why I should believe in your claim of some personal god(s). 
 I choose the view that can make sense of it 
When did we discuss any view that makes sense of It? You can't solve a mystery by appealing to a larger mystery. 
His mercy and compassion for me who believes in Him
Is necessarily anecdotal in nature. You cannot directly demonstrate it only give your subjective account of it.
What authority do you have that I should believe you?
What demonstrable authority do you have that I should believe you?

Also I am not endorsing any particular explanation so I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to get you to believe.

Without Him, we are left in a sea of relativism where our limited knowledge is a hindrance for us. 
If some omniscient being does exist how does that in any way prevent us as non-omniscient beings from existing in a sea of relativism where our limited knowledge is a hindrance for us?

Either way I have enjoyed the conversation I'm glad we stumbled past each other however it turns out.  I do this in part for recreation. 
#649
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Yassine
Intelligence goes without speaking, but where do you find a specific reference to His intelligence in the Bible?
- No, 'Intelligent' is not one of the attributes of Allah as decreed in the Quran, so we do not say God is intelligent. & I'm no expert in the Bible, but Christians do indeed claim God as an Intelligent Omnibenevolent being.
The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly.

I am not familiar with the biblical passage you reference that states God is intelligent but it is obvious to us by what we see and what His word says. The universe has purpose and meaning that we find in it. That is a sign of supreme intelligence. We are intricately and wonderfully made. That shows God's understanding, and understand that even the most intelligent among us humans have a hard time fathoming. The complexity of creation speaks volumes of His intelligence. 


I don't understand. Is Allah not all good and are some of the things done by Allah evil?
- All-Good is not an attribute of God either. In Islam, Good & Evil are relative concepts. God is not contingent on Good. We do not worship God because God is Good, for then in the absence of Good, God deserves no worship, which entails Good is what you worship, not God. God does not have to be Good or Bad, God is not subject to Morality.
You may not, but we as Christians do worship God because of His goodness and love for us. That is just another glaring difference between our two religious views. There is always goodness in the world, despite all the evil in it by those who live contrary to what God has declared to us as good - to love Him and place Him first and then to love our neighbour.

Evil is a lack of the light of God who you understand as Allah.

God is not subject to morality because He is always good. 

Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

Malachi 3:6“For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

As you agree, God is merciful. It is good to be merciful. God is loving. It is good to be loving. God is forgiving. It is good to be forgiving. 



How can we worship the same God when what we believe about Him differ? I accept that you call God Allah. 
- Beliefs of God =/= God.
Unless they correspond to worshiping God as He is and as He has revealed Himself. Why do you think you worship God as He truly is? 


The teachings of Jesus state:
John 4:22-24 (NASB)
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 
24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship  in spirit and truth.”
If we are not worshiping God as He truly is then are we not committing idolatry, a false concept of God? If so, then how can you say we are all worshiping the same God if one of us identifies Him as all good in all He does and the other does not?
- Indeed. I guess one of us must be wrong, "To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (5:48)
True, one of us, at least, is wrong.

Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
 



Those underlined points are key/vital truths of Christianity. This brings me to another point - do you have to earn salvation in Islam and how would you know you have achieved a right standing with God/Allah? IOW's, is your acceptance with God/Allah based on what you do?
- You don't earn salvation in Islam, just hope of salvation. We believe salvation rests solely on God's Mercy which we have no power over, while reward after salvation rests on our deeds.
How can you be sure you have salvation with Islam? It depends on what you do, or do you think God will have mercy on someone who sins or constantly sins? 

We believe God is merciful in forgiving us Jesus because no human sacrifice can earn salvation but God (who is perfect and perfectly good) requires us to live without sin before Him for the reason that sin alienates us from His presence. Thus, as taught in the NT, Jesus lived a perfect life before God as a human being on our behalf. Not only this, He paid the penalty for our sin by dying for us. Thus, both God's justice and right relationship are met in Jesus and those who believe in Him. So, we don't have to offer sacrifices to obtain salvation if we are included in Jesus, which is by faith. Through that faith relationship with Jesus Christ, we find peace with God and God transforms our natures. 



So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to Islam then which one is right/true?
- Islam of course, for it is the last religion & the seal on all religions. When I say Islam approves all religions, I mean they were divinely revealed when revealed, which may not necessarily correspond with how they are practiced today.


Well, it is not the last religion. Bahaism claims it is the latest manifestation of God and it contradicts the way you look upon the Qur'an. So it is newer religious writing as authored by Bahá'u'lláh (1817–1892). New religious faiths are happening every day as people make their own gods. 


#650
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0

Why is your view the necessary view of how and why the universe exists? 
Because it is consistent with logic and mathematics and the scientific method, validated by verifiable efficacy.
Yet we have finite knowledge. Particular views of science like the Ptolemaic view have been overturned by the Copernican view. Newton had limited knowledge and some of his principles have been refuted and others have been expanded upon. Einstein's views have been expanded. Now we have the science of quantum physics and other views that challenge the current paradigm. They all used mathematics and logic. With their limited understanding, these people thought their views were valid, the answer, yet some of those views have been overturned or modified and expanded upon. 
Yes.  It is a dynamic system of knowledge.  Not dogma.  And yet, even dogma changes.  Have you heard of Vatican 2? [LINK]

And you say "god"

And I say "nobody knows"

These answers are FUNCTIONALLY identical.

Your answer does not logically necessitate ANY modification to our daily behavior.
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible.
Noumenon is the logically necessary "thing".

Why would a universe begin to exist, then sustain itself via random chance happenstance?
Nobody is arguing in favor or "random chance".  We've established a "creator", now you just have to draw a straight line to "your version".

It is not logically consistent that a universe that has no intent to it, no design, no purpose would continue to exist and sustain itself for billions of years via chance.
Nobody is arguing in favor or "random chance".  We've established a "creator", now you just have to draw a straight line to "your version".

And why do we continue to find meaning in a meaningless universe, even design? Is meaning and design really there or are we just making it up?
Why do some people like broccoli and other people hate broccoli?

Your answer does not reveal any useful or actionable data or insights.
It makes sense of how origins can come about, through intentional Being and by His sustaining it.
We already agree on noumenon, but what makes you think it is a "being" and has male genitalia?

We see how humans are able to sustain things and utilize nature in cultivating it for food that left alone would return to randomness without their human input. 
Humans existed just fine before the invention of agriculture.  In-fact some continue to this day without it.

The data is there in prophecy and how it interacts with history. It is reasonable and logical to believe with the information available to us from history. 
Your evidence of prophecy is like saying, "the empire state building is real, and therefore, since the empire state building is in a spider-man comic book, therefore the story must be true and spider-man is real."

Saying, "god did it" is functionally identical to saying, "nobody knows". [LINK]
Again, God doing it makes sense of its being. I challenge you to explain why the universe is here. Make sense of the "why." 
I challenge you to explain why the surface of the sun has 378 dark spots on it today and only had 226 dark spots yesterday.

Saying "god did it" explains absolutely nothing at all.  Which god?  Vishnu did it.  Pangu did it.  Nanabozho did it.  The Grand Architect did it.

See?  They all work EQUALLY WELL.

I understand that when you say, "god did it" you try to add "therefore we must obey the teachings written in some old book".

But you have yet to bridge that incomprehensible gap with any sort of (even tacitly) coherent argument.
What is more reasonable, life coming from the living or life coming from something devoid of life, and where do you ever witness it doing so? You just assume it can because you have built a paradigm around such a scenario.
What is more reasonable, life is a complex series of chemical reactions (OR) life is some sort of super-magical-multidimensional-metaphysical-mysterious-undetectable-subtle-substance or property?

EVEN (IFF) you want to ascribe the term "living" to noumenon (which seems dubious but acceptable for the sake of argument), it brings you nowhere nearer to and sort of argument in favor of your PARTICULAR choice of god(s).

Topic's author
#651
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Your evidence of prophecy is like saying, "the empire state building is real, and therefore, since the empire state building is in a spider-man comic book, therefore the story must be true and spider-man is real."

Excellent illustration. I hope it sinks in this time. Claims are not evidence of whatever they claim!
Topic's author
#652
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Saying, "god did it" is functionally identical to saying, "nobody knows". [LINK]
Again, God doing it makes sense of its being. I challenge you to explain why the universe is here. Make sense of the "why." 
Harping on this: the topic grants that a god-like something is WHY the universe is here. The challenge is why that god is the Christian version of God, and not Yassine's version of Allah, or the team of gods that make the most sense from the Pantheon (refutation thereof still pending by you, I'm afraid). You answer is "the bible says it's this one." Yassine's answer is "The Quran says it's this one." Somehow you both will then say "Well, it's the same one, really," and then both of you will retire tonight thinking the other's definitely going to roast in eternal torture for being wrong on technicality. At least you'll both agree that I'm going to burn in hell as an atheist, I suppose there's hope for us all :). 

#653
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@disgusted
@ludofl3x
Excellent illustration. I hope it sinks in this time. Claims are not evidence of whatever they claim!
I don't remember if that one was from you or disgusted.  Either way, I'm stealin' it!!!!!
#654
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Some interpreters of the Koran say that who goes to heaven or hell is entirely upto God and Christians are perfectly acceptable.

Surely the believers and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians – whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the last day and does good deeds – shall have their reward with their Lord and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve. (2:63, also 5:69)

Of course other Muslim scholars dispute that, citing:

Whoever prefers a religion other than Islam, it shall definitely not be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter, he shall be among the losers.
(3:85)

Christianity seems less tolerant:
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

But may be  there's hope even for atheists:
James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

It's all very confusing  - or it would be if god existed.


#655
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
The answer is God has revealed what is good and we have disobeyed Him. God has given us light (His word is a light to our feet, it illuminates truth) yet we choose to walk in darkness, to do our own thing (relativism).
This is your answer to the big question "why are we here"? How does this approach an answer to that question, exactly? You profess to have answers, this isn't one.
It gives a good reason for our existence. Not only this, the Bible is a confirmation of His revelation on many levels. 

A scenario without God/gods is blind, indifference random chance happenstance for there is no intent, no reason why we would get consistency or sustainability. Tear into that scenario and let's see how you make sense of it. We will have a comparison and contrast. 


I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible. 

You keep stepping in this.
Then explain how it is possible and how it makes sense. I want to see the logic of your position once you jettison God as to how it is possible or makes sense.


The topic at hand grants the universe exists via an agency creating it, for purposes of discussion. We're on page 26 and you've not made one inch of progress toward the question: why is that agent the god in your book. You continually skip that step and then start talking about stuff that makes no sense and that no one contends in this topic.
You are the one who keeps inhibiting me from providing a reasoned and logical explanation via prophecy since you will not look at it. How many responses have you said, "Show God and don't use the Bible" or how many times have you tried to infer the Bible is not supported by other evidence?

I can't get to that stage until you are willing to have a reasoned dialogue in which we both answer the other person's questions. 


Why would a universe begin to exist, then sustain itself via random chance happenstance?
The laws of nature =/= chance happenstance, and by all observations, they are what sustains the existence of the universe and describe how it behaves. 
If there is no intention behind nature there is no reason why uniformity of nature would continue, yet it does. Explain why this continues. Somehow these laws exist. Explain how they do form without intent and are sustained with no intent. 


It is not logically consistent that a universe that has no intent to it, no design, no purpose would continue to exist and sustain itself for billions of years via chance. 
Again, the laws of nature appear to be sufficient to sustain the universe, because they are demonstrated.
Because they are demonstrated does not show how they came to exist via chance happenstance which they would have to derive from without intentional Being. 


You question isn't really sustaining the universe, it's what CREATED the universe.
And yet without God, an intentional Being, why would chance form and sustain these laws? 


The existence of a thinking agent up there with its hands on the dials IS NOT demonstrated, though it is GRANTED for discussion here. Why is that character your god? Don't say "It is," or "The bible says it is," or "that's the one that makes the most sense." Explain, don't assert. Again, page 26 and you've not tried.
Such a Being makes sense. Random chance happenstance does not. You assume it can but you have not demonstrated it. You assume that such means are the way it is but you can't make sense of it. If you can please demonstrate. I'm willing to put God against "Chance" to contrast the two. Then we will see which makes sense.

And nothing seems more ludicrous to me than when a person claims there's a reason or a plan or a purpose and then makes no attempt to describe any of them in any way.
Nonsense. You keep demonstrating you are not interested. How do you want me to prove God without using the Bible in which this God is revealed? I can use the Bible in conjunction with history or choose another vehicle to demonstrate Him, yet for this thread I choose prophecy. You have yet to answer the questions I asked you in the original post (OP).


"What is the purpose of the unverse" is the question to which you feel you have a religious based answer, but when queried all you can say is "BEcause god wants us to love him or wants to  love us", which does not in any way explain anything, particularly when he's apparently done such a shit job designing people that he is by default mad at them forever. He's sure good at covering his tracks though, that part he paid particular attention to: disappear, and then leave only evidence that makes it look like you were never there and aren't required. 
No, I stated the purpose of God in creating us was a relationship and the means God has given us is the majesty and glory of what He has created. The Bible discloses He created humans in His image and likeness.


What exactly do you mean? The complexity and intricacy that is you cannot be copied by our minds. With Adam's choice (the Fall) God put measures in place to counter humans living forever (decay and death) by eating of the tree of life. Again, He did this for a purpose, to remind us of our frailty and perhaps seek Him out.  

The biblical explanation is reasonable and logical. It explains wrong. If we are just biological machines why is what one does any better or right than what another does? It would be all determined by our genetics and environment. What makes those two factors right?

#656
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Excellent illustration. I hope it sinks in this time. Claims are not evidence of whatever they claim!
But isn't the claim that the empire state building appears in a story from 500 years ago, perfectly described, right down to the giant gorilla on top of it?


Topic's author
#657
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
You are the one who keeps inhibiting me from providing a reasoned and logical explanation via prophecy since you will not look at it
How would prophecy, written by men, in a book from 2000 years ago, somehow in any way prove your version of god was real, and as secular merlin points out, that it isn't what Muslims, I believe, call abrogation or some other explanation? Again this is granting your prophesy of choice, the one about the temple, which is not strictly in the bible and requires post-hoc footnoting to make it work. 

How do you want me to prove God without using the Bible in which this God is revealed?
Evidence would be a start. The bible is the claim, you say yourself right here: the character in the book is real! How do I prove it without saying the book says he's real? By pointing to the book again!
Topic's author
#658
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
But isn't the claim that the empire state building appears in a story from 500 years ago, perfectly described, right down to the giant gorilla on top of it?

That's PGa's claim about the prophecy. THe claim I'm referring to is that the character in the book is real: "This book is true." Okay, how do you know it's true? "The book itself says it's true and I can't imagine it's not true so therefore it's true." 

or

"This man murdered his wife." (claim)

"How can we confirm this?" (inquiry)

"I just told you he murdered his wife." (CLAIM) or...

"We found him with the weapon, covered in her blood as verified by DNA evidence, and he'd recently discovered she was sleeping wtih another man. We also have texts that show him saying "I'm on my way over there to kill you." (EVIDENCE)
#659
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The artist (that is the only thing in existence) would necessarily be required to create any work of art out of itself.  Perhaps it could use some strands of hair to form a brush and perhaps some blood and saliva for paint, and perhaps a patch of skin for a canvas. 
Here again, you are equating what is in the created world/realm/order to God by the analogy. Both you and God would use their imaginations to create. The difference is that God does not use any preexisting physical material when He creates. You do unless it is a story from your mind and you use preexisting things from the material realm mostly to describe the things existing in the story unless you are imagining abstractions such as principles of logic or mathematics. 
Is your imagination part of you?

Is a god's imagination part of it?

Are we part of Brahman's dream?

Does that make us 100% Brahman?

A hypothetical god can (EITHER) be interactive and therefore fundamentally similar to all things in existence (OR) non-interactive and therefore fundamentally dissimilar to all things in existence.
Why? Why either/or instead of and/both?
Because they are mutually exclusive options.  You can't be part of something AND not-part of something at the same time.

 (IFF) such a god is the sole creator of everything (THEN) everything is pieces parts of god and as such this type of god CAN interact with those pieces parts of itself.  On the other hand, (IFF) such a god is supposedly "transcendent" or otherwise fundamentally separate from the material realm and the material realm is NOT part of god (THEN) such a god would never be able to interact with or observe the material realm and anything and everything in the material realm would never be able to interact with or observe such a god.
How can something be a piece or part of God if God is immaterial and the something is material?
(IFF) the material realm is god's imagination (THEN) the material realm is 100% pure god.

Why can't Someone who is immaterial and omnipotent as well as omniscient produce something material by using His mind?
It can.  But as a logical consequence of that, the material realm is 100% pure god.

Noumenon (god) logically extends beyond the material (knowable) realm, but everything is necessarily part of noumenon (god).

You just presuppose this is impossible because you can't do that, yet you are neither omnipotent nor omniscient.
You have dismantled your own argument (disqualified yourself) unless you personally claim to be omnipotent and or omniscient yourself.

I have made a logical deduction.  Please respond accordingly.

If you are spirit as well as body then you interact with the world in both aspects of your being.
(IFF) "spirit" and body can interact in any way (THEN) they MUST be comprised of a common fundamental substance and CANNOT be properly described as separate aspects.

If you are solely a biological material machine how do you come up with concepts that are not material but abstract and do not owe their existence to any material thing?
In the same way that insects and animals are able to anticipate phenomena based on instinct and experience.  No magic-soul required.

The key question here is, "what did god make everything out of?"
He imagined it into existence. Just like you can create something out of what exists by reshaping and moulding it through your imagination so God can create something physical from His imagination.
(IFF) the material realm is god's imagination (THEN) the material realm is 100% pure god.

Certainly such a god would not be LIMITED TO the material realm, but it also cannot logically be EXCLUDED FROM the material realm (without also necessarily excluding it from all possible observation and or interaction with the material realm).
The Son became part of the realm He created as well as sustaining it and interacting with it, so He does not exclude Himself from it. He excludes Himself from sin and wrongful action. 
It's funny when you have to imagine something to fix your own imagination when it doesn't act the way you want it to.
 
I'm not saying that a god CANNOT be interactive.  I'm saying that a god cannot be interactive AND transcendent (not 100% of everything).
I still don't understand why not? 

You are not a part of the chair in your dining room but you can interact with it. You probably did not create the chair and even if you did the chair is not you, yet you interact with it. Your being transcends the chair in a sense (although not solely in the same sense or definition that I would apply to God - including #3 especially - below) in that God and you are both conscious but you have a corporeal/bodily existence, God doe not. The chair does not have consciousness, just physical existence.
Here's the problem with your example.  I do not claim to be the only thing in existence.  I do not claim to have created everything out of pure imagination.

I am part of the material realm.  The chair is part of the material realm.  Time is part of the material realm.

We can observe some segment of time, but time itself extends beyond our limited human experience.

The fact that time extends beyond our human experience does not mean that "time is not part of (or somehow fundamentally separate from) the material realm".

IN THE EXACT SAME WAY, the material realm is comprised of 100% pure noumenon and yet some aspects of noumenon extend beyond our epistemological limits.

The material realm is comprised of 100% pure noumenon.

The material realm is some unknown fraction of the whole (noumenon).
#660
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
But surely the argument is that as the bible contains an uncannily accurate prophecy of events more than 500 years in its future it must be divinrly inspired, therefore it can be trusted.

It's not a rigorous argument and I don't think pga claims it is.  But it is 'reasonable', and 'more reasonble' than any other model.  Allegedly.